I agree with what he has to say about the Trident replacement but not his sentiment about the T45s, Typhoon or even the aircraft carriers. we need them otherwise the rest of the armed forces fester and become obsolete. I do not think these are obsolete and I think they are sorely required.

My issue is that he seems only to propose a rethink of current funding rather than increased funding which should be paying for the above and for the equipment that the troops on the ground desperately need as well.

I luvved the way the Beeb showed Blur the other day making a speech early on in his first term saying words to the effect of
"We have the chance to be the first generation NOT to send it's troops to war"
and the following with the comment that HE 'Blur' sent more troops to fight in wars then any PM since Churchill.

Armies are exspensive in peacetime, Wars send that cost through the roof.
Everyone who ever wore Her Majesties Uniform learned the age old tale of train hard and many learned the fight easy (easier ! ) bit.
If Government does not provied the troops it Commands in Her Majesties name with the large ammount of money nessasary for trainging and equipment then the pittance it spends is waste, money down the drain.
Mess up your educational system or your health system as this current government has done and you have time for someone to repair your blunders.
Foul up your defence Stragey and you may be lucky to get a second chance.
That worked it the past, 1940 being the last example.
But now ? No.
john
Gorden you have started well saying you'll do away with Spin and get back to 'Proper' old style Government.
Just remember Tone Dear Tone in his first comments.

If he was down south in 82 and doesn't realise the requirement for air defence destroyers and air cover

It's very pro-army, this is an army site = must be good

Click to expand...

Like Max Hastings, the self-proclaimed liberator of Stanley, Robert Fox is fiercely pro-Army but often displays an anti-RN and RAF bias. While I agree that the usual answer is 'boots on the ground', how does he think the 'boots' (and their air support, armour, fuel, ammo, stores, etc) will be delivered, protected and sustained in a hostile environment when there's no host nation support available? It sounds like he's already forgotten the lessons of the Falklands war.

Too many people already take the simplistic view that the Army captured the Falklands (wot, no Royal Marines or Naval Gunfire Support?) and the RAF shot down the Argentine Air Force (wot, no RN Sea Harriers?) while the RN just lost ships (so how did our people and kit arrive 8,000 miles away and achieve the aim then? And what about RN submarines forcing the Argentine Navy to scurry back into port?)

I don't mind a bit of inter-service rivalry but any attempts to set one service against the others should be resisted. United we stand... and all that sort of thing. The new carriers and Type 45 destroyers (8-12 of them as mandated by SDR) are vital to retain any credible global capability or we will ALL be reduced to a home defence force, unable to counteract any developing threat until it reaches our shores.

(though I do think maybe there's a tiny bit of over-simplification in the article...)

Still, heart's in the right place and perhaps Brown is listening? He hinted earlier today he'd listen to the forces - lets see if that's just rhetoric[/quote]

Yeah, right. As though he doesn't know the problems - it was him (not Blair) that created most of them.

Click to expand...

A classic ploy for anyone who has ever received media training. The key phrase is "He hinted he'd listen". It ensures that he has the flexibility to either listen or not... and if he does listen, he is not compelling himself to act. Therefore it is in itself a vacuous statement. Unfortunately this is commonplace in Westminster.... and they wonder why voters don't go to the polls.

If he was down south in 82 and doesn't realise the requirement for air defence destroyers and air cover

It's very pro-army, this is an army site = must be good

Click to expand...

Like Max Hastings, the self-proclaimed liberator of Stanley, Robert Fox is fiercely pro-Army but often displays an anti-RN and RAF bias. While I agree that the usual answer is 'boots on the ground', how does he think the 'boots' (and their air support, armour, fuel, ammo, stores, etc) will be delivered, protected and sustained in a hostile environment when there's no host nation support available? It sounds like he's already forgotten the lessons of the Falklands war.

Too many people already take the simplistic view that the Army captured the Falklands (wot, no Royal Marines or Naval Gunfire Support?) and the RAF shot down the Argentine Air Force (wot, no RN Sea Harriers?) while the RN just lost ships (so how did our people and kit arrive 8,000 miles away and achieve the aim then? And what about RN submarines forcing the Argentine Navy to scurry back into port?)

I don't mind a bit of inter-service rivalry but any attempts to set one service against the others should be resisted. United we stand... and all that sort of thing. The new carriers and Type 45 destroyers (8-12 of them as mandated by SDR) are vital to retain any credible global capability or we will ALL be reduced to a home defence force, unable to counteract any developing threat until it reaches our shores.

Click to expand...

New ships will no doubt be welcome. I seem to recall they also need a lot of fuel and the odd sailor. The lack of these is no doubt why all too often what looks like the bulk of the fleet is harboured up in port.